Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.), rendered January 4, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
During voir dire, one prospective juror indicated that he might give more weight to a police officer’s testimony than to that of a civilian. This same prospective juror revealed that he had been the victim of an identity theft, a crime similar in nature to the one being tried, and he indicated that he was “not sure” if he
As the People commendably concede, the prospective juror’s answers revealed a state of mind likely to preclude him “from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]; People v Grant, 297 AD2d 687, 688 [2002]; People v Zachary, 260 AD2d 514 [1999]; People v Light, 260 AD2d 404, 405 [1999]; People v White, 260 AD2d 413, 414 [1999]) and, therefore, the challenge for cause should have been allowed (see People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 78 [1982]; People v Light, supra; People v White, supra). Since the defendant exercised a peremptory challenge to remove the prospective juror and subsequently exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, the conviction must be reversed (see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Grant, supra at 688; People v Light, supra at 405-406).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Florio, J.P, Santucci, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.